Twitter: Greg Hardy will consult with NFLPA whether to take his suspension to federal court

[TwoCentPlain]

Appeal definitely!
If I were Hardy's legal team, I would argue that the suspension should be 0 games because he was convicted of nothing. That initial conviction was a kangaroo court and the NFL are idiots for using that as a basis for suspension. During his 'real' trial or before, the so-called victim did not show up or agreed to a settlement and the case is closed with NO conviction. The settlement is closed and the NFL has no right to see it and no idea what is in it. For all we know, the victim may have admitted to lying and the plaintiff gave a sum of money to be done with her forever.

If the league insists or negotiates for a 2 game suspension, I would say OK as long as the NFL agrees that Hardy served his two game suspension last year since he was not allowed to play last year. Yes, he was paid for all the games last year. So, we will give you two game checks from last year as a fine and call it a day.

End result, Hardy is playing either way. The NFL has no leg to stand on. They know it. Does the NFL want to waste money on lawyers and more bad publicity for another court loss? My guess is no. The NFL will accept Hardy's two game checks from last year and walk away smiling.

 

[conner01]

When Hardy appeals it means he will be there for the opener.

If he can get an injunction

 

[conner01]

Maybe not the actual court system but rather the CBA dictates you have 90 days to take action on an appeal ruling and if you don't you agree to the findings?

He has till Friday at midnight

 

[jazzcat22]

A scenario could be, and would this be too much to ask or to be true.
Of course 0 games would be great.
But he appeals, and therefore can play until settled. He plays the first 8 games, and of course McClain is back also. His suspension is reduced to 2 games, he misses the TB & Miami games. Then returns.
So we have Hardy while McClain is out, then only miss Hardy for 2 game, but McClain is back. Plus Gregory has more experience by this time for those 2 game.

 

[conner01]

A scenario could be, and would this be too much to ask or to be true.
Of course 0 games would be great.
But he appeals, and therefore can play until settled. He plays the first 8 games, and of course McClain is back also. His suspension is reduced to 2 games, he misses the TB & Miami games. Then returns.
So we have Hardy while McClain is out, then only miss Hardy for 2 game, but McClain is back. Plus Gregory has more experience by this time for those 2 game.

Based on this ruling if I was the league I would just reduce it to two games
That would probably be upheld
The alternative is because of the process they could lose the entire suspension

 

[CrownCowboy]

Appeal definitely!
If I were Hardy's legal team, I would argue that the suspension should be 0 games because he was convicted of nothing. That initial conviction was a kangaroo court and the NFL are idiots for using that as a basis for suspension. During his 'real' trial or before, the so-called victim did not show up or agreed to a settlement and the case is closed with NO conviction. The settlement is closed and the NFL has no right to see it and no idea what is in it. For all we know, the victim may have admitted to lying and the plaintiff gave a sum of money to be done with her forever.

If the league insists or negotiates for a 2 game suspension, I would say OK as long as the NFL agrees that Hardy served his two game suspension last year since he was not allowed to play last year. Yes, he was paid for all the games last year. So, we will give you two game checks from last year as a fine and call it a day.

End result, Hardy is playing either way. The NFL has no leg to stand on. They know it. Does the NFL want to waste money on lawyers and more bad publicity for another court loss? My guess is no. The NFL will accept Hardy's two game checks from last year and walk away smiling.

Yep.

The woman wanted to get paid off. It really is as simple as that despite all that the media has tried to make of it imo.

Hardy has been convicted of nothing and has already sat out for an entire season. If a cheater, someone who has broken the rules and threatened the integrity of the game gets off with no suspension, then someone with nothing on his record that has already sat out an entire season for something that not even the alleged victim is willing to prosecute him for should be able to play and move on with his career.

 

[superonyx]

Not to defend Tom Brady too much but I strongly believe Odell Backhams gloves give him more of an advantage in catching the ball than Brady gains by letting a little air out. Or Peyton Mannings gloves give him a better grip ect...

Still though the rules are the rules and you have to follow them....

Disclaimer....I'm sick of seeing that stupid catch over and over...can't even play Madden 16 without seeing that stupid play in a losing effort.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

There

Hope your right but somehow I would think they would look at this a little differently given the charges. Not saying it's right or wrong but your looking at significant assault charges vs. deflating the air from football. I can see some impartial outside pressure on the judge which could theoretically come from his own wife.

There isn't much difference.......Hardy or Brady wasn't found guilty of a crime in a court of law with a jury. ..

 

[Kevinicus]

Shefy saying that tomorrow is the 90 day deadline which Hardy can appeal.

Shefy bad at math? July 10 - Sept 4 = 56 days.

 

[Bowdown27]

So if he appeals and gets an injunction he's there week one ?

 

[Wood]

going for injunction is smart move. You have NY Giants and Philly to start season. You need Hardy now. This way maybe we stagger his suspension with Mac suspension. 2 game suspension very likely if this goes to fed court.

 

[LandryFan]

Under the player conduct policy, based on the time the alleged misconduct took place, the maximum suspension that players were put on notice of was 2 games .

IIRC, Goodell suspended him for "Conduct Detrimental to the League" rather than Player Misconduct. If that's the case, I don't recall any precedent for that (players suspended for similar misconduct in the past were always suspended for player misconduct rather than conduct detrimental to the league). If what I stated is correct, then that could work for or against Hardy, depending on whether a Judge buys him being rightfully suspended for conduct detrimental to the league. If a Judge calls BS on that, then he/she might throw out the suspension altogether...am I off base here, or does my thought process have merit?

 

[casmith07]

IIRC, Goodell suspended him for "Conduct Detrimental to the League" rather than Player Misconduct. If that's the case, I don't recall any precedent for that (players suspended for similar misconduct in the past were always suspended for player misconduct rather than conduct detrimental to the league). If what I stated is correct, then that could work for or against Hardy, depending on whether a Judge buys him being rightfully suspended for conduct detrimental to the league. If a Judge calls BS on that, then he/she might throw out the suspension altogether...am I off base here, or does my thought process have merit?

If that's the case, then my argument is exactly the same as the Brady argument - the 10 game suspension and subsequent 4 game reduction are both arbitrary and my client, Mr. Hardy, was not given proper notice of the potential disciplinary determinations for allegations of this type - particularly given the fact that there was no criminal conviction.

Even further - Ben Roethlisberger, who was suspended under the same policy, although prior to the current iteration of this CBA, had his suspension reduced to 2 games, and he was alleged to have committed sexual assault.

Lots of ways to go into this thing strong. Either way, the NFL loses.

 

[LandryFan]

If that's the case, then my argument is exactly the same as the Brady argument - the 10 game suspension and subsequent 4 game reduction are both arbitrary and my client, Mr. Hardy, was not given proper notice of the potential disciplinary determinations for allegations of this type - particularly given the fact that there was no criminal conviction.

Even further - Ben Roethlisberger, who was suspended under the same policy, although prior to the current iteration of this CBA, had his suspension reduced to 2 games, and he was alleged to have committed sexual assault.

Lots of ways to go into this thing strong. Either way, the NFL loses.

Thanks for the reply/info.

 

[CF74]

Why do I feel like he waited too long? Good grief he should have filed immediately...

 

[Everson24]

I don't think so, based on how Brady's was ruled. Judge Berman even noted the suspensions of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson being capped at 2 games due to notice of the Player Conduct policy being proper, which is where this case ran afoul for the NFL.

Hardy is looking at 2 games max based on Peterson, Rice, and now Brady under notice and prior precedent. I would also argue that the exempt list term from the previous year serves as constructive suspension and that the entirety of Hardy's suspension should be vacated, but that's a new argument that does not have any persuasive case law to point to.

tl;dr -- I think in light of Brady, Hardy should be capped at 2 (plus Peterson/Rice rulings). With a little extra lawyering, maybe 0 games.

I think he should fight to give back 2-4 game checks while on the exempt list and then have the suspension lifted. That would seem to be fair for both sides.

 

[erod]

I think he should fight to give back 2-4 game checks while on the exempt list and then have the suspension lifted. That would seem to be fair for both sides.

So Jerry has to pay for two games that he doesn't play in? That's not fair to Jerry.

 

[lukin1966]

If he appeals and gets an injunction ... that would be great, we'd likely have him for the first 2 games against division opponents.

 

[conner01]

Not to defend Tom Brady too much but I strongly believe Odell Backhams gloves give him more of an advantage in catching the ball than Brady gains by letting a little air out. Or Peyton Mannings gloves give him a better grip ect...

Still though the rules are the rules and you have to follow them....

Disclaimer....I'm sick of seeing that stupid catch over and over...can't even play Madden 16 without seeing that stupid play in a losing effort.

The difference is the gloves are legal by league rules
Letting air out of the ball is not
Anyone can wear the exact same gloves

 

[EST_1986]

So Jerry has to pay for two games that he doesn't play in? That's not fair to Jerry.

He was on the exempt lost while with the Panthers